Reducing the Executive Power to Appropriate Leads to a More Stable System of Checks and Balances

Funny, I was thinking of writing an article regarding this subject a couple of weeks ago; now it is in the news.

Nonetheless, I agree with Rep. Ma. Rachel Arenas.

But why should Congress takes its purse power back? What is the implication of delegating the power of the purse to the chief executive?

First, let me first establish the premise that without public funds, no government policy will take effect; public services will grind to a halt.

Without funds, even the most effective, ideal, and pressing legislation is useless. I will use the AFP modernization program as an example. There is concensus between congress and the executive branch that the Philippine military deserves the most advance equipment, tools, and weaponry. But reality dictates that without a reliable funding source, the primary duty of the government in terms of securing the stability of the state, that is, the security and welfare of its people, will have to be set aside until sufficient funding becomes available.

Simply put, money makes the world go around; well, at least as far as public policy goes. This leads one to state that whoever possesses the most visible and extensive appropriation powers has a greater chance of convincing the citizenry to decide which government branch is the most useful to them; hence, whom the people would greatly empower.

Since the citizens vote for those who benefits them, it is important that the House of the Representatives and the Senate virtually take back all governmental powers relating to the disbursement of the people's money, that is, If both houses of Congress wish to stay in the good graces and positive view of the Filipino people. For to be fruitful in their legislative endeavours, in addition to the all-important duty of limiting potential executive and judicial excesses, the Philippine Congress must take the initiative to take back its exclusive prerogative; there is no question that it has the power and authority to do so. The danger of being irrelevant is indeed related to inaction.

But unless the two houses combine their efforts into an overriding congressional action and stick with their traditional belongings, I admit I find it impossible for the national legislature to successfuly engage the veto-wielding chief executive.

If Congress remains indifferent to the unceasing presidential publicity and flaunting of appropriating public funds, especially since the Philippine media is quite used to the notion that the Office of the President appropriated, gave, provided, and released such money, then Congress has itself to blame for encouraging the perpetuation of a strong presidency, courtesy of congressional inaction to take back a stolen prerogative as a result of a Marcos era perversion of the separation of powers among the co-equal branches of the government.

Article VI, Section 29 of the Philippine Constitution stipulates that:

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

As the making of laws is the turf of the legislative branch of government, Congress must further exert its appropriation and oversight role in government spending or lose its position and relevance in the most important political arena - the court of public opinion. With such constitutional provision, it is up to the Philippine Congress to take back this essential legislative prerogative; it must, once and for all, decide whether it is worthy of being delegated the power of appropriating the money of the sovereign Filipino people.

It is time to bring balance to the separation of powers, which is the essence of a stable republican government, at least by a congressional act to take back what is in essence an exclusive congressional authority.